BRO ELI SORIANO NASAAN DAW ANG 69 MILYON NA PONDO?

Meron akong nasagap na info na ika merong nawawalang pondo na ibinibintang kay Bro Eli. Hinde ko alam kung totoo ito, partially totoo o buong katotohanan. But its better to face ang ganitong paninira. Eto screenshot, please take time to read:

Ang sabi, merong 69 milyong piso na unaccounted for sa account ng samahan ni Bro Eli at napagalamang itoy imbes na sa account ng iglesia nakapangalan e transferred ito sa account ni bro eli. Ngayon, ang tanong nila: Hinde ba labag ito sa rules ng SEC dahil bago ipangalan sa isang individual ang sinasabing ari-arian ay dapat pinagtibay ito ng majority ng mga kaanib?

Para sa mas klarong pangungusap, ilatag ko muna ang batas na tinawag na Religious congregations and societies act:

Meetings

6 (1) The members of every such congregation may(a) meet when they think proper;(b) at any such meeting by the votes of the majority of the members present, make and put in execution such regulations, not being contrary to the laws of this Province or to any rule or regulation embodied in the deed under which the congregation or society is constituted, as the majority deems necessary for the government of the congregation;(c) change such regulations as they think proper.

Constitution and by-laws and officers

(2) Such society or congregation, at any such meeting or any subsequent meeting called in the same manner, may by a majority of votes adopt such permanent constitution and by-laws not inconsistent with the laws of this Province as it considers necessary, and may appoint trustees and such other office-bearers as it sees fit, and define their powers and duties, and may regulate the terms of membership in the society or congregation.Vesting of property(3) The real and personal property of the society or congregation are vested in such persons as are duly appointed trustees thereof by resolution of any such meeting, during their continuance in office, and any such resolution shall be recorded in a book to be kept for that purpose.Powers of officers and trustees(4) The officers and trustees appointed from time to time by any such congregation or society are invested with all such powers for the holding and transfer of the property and management of the business of the congregation or society as are conferred upon them by the constitution and by-laws so adopted.

Ang sabi, ang pagtatalaga ng mga trustees o officers is by a majority of votes ng mga present sa meeting. And by these majority, e magtatalaga sila ng sariling constitution and by laws. Ang mga officers and trustees na itinalaga ng majority votes e me kapangyarihan para hawakan at ilipat ang mga ari-arian ng samahan kasama dito ang pamamahala nito ayon sa pinagtibay na constitution and by-laws. In short, nakapangalan sa piniling officer/s ang property ng samahan by virtue of a majority vote.

So naturally, hinde problema kung nakapangalan kay bro eli yang sinasabing 69 milyon na pondo. Ang problema is, was it by due process?

So ngayon, kayo magpatunay. Una, aling bahagi ng accusation ang totoo? Pangalawa, wala bang congregational meeting na nagtalaga kay bro eli bilang officer in charge para hawakan ang ari arian ng iglesia?

Kung wala man, bakit hinde kinasuhan si bro eli gayong me karapatan kayong magkaso?

4 (1) Such trustees, in all matters concerning the real and personal property of the congregation, may sue and be sued by their name of office.

Dahil hinde kinasuhan, edi walang ilegal na nangyari. Pangatlo, kung lumabag man siya sa batas at kusang ipinangalan niya sa sarili niya ang property ng iglesia, is it a big deal? Does it constitutes an ill intention to have it for his own profit?

So the issue is, maaaring nagkamali lang siya sa hakbang na yon na ipinangalan sa sarili niya ang properties ng samahan na hinde kasangayon ng batas pero hinde ibig sabihin e mayroon siyang intention ng katiwalian. Maaaring lumabag sa batas pero walang intention ng katiwalian, di ba posible yon? So the problem is, maaaring lumabag siya sa batas, which if sufficient reason as probable cause para makasuhan, bakit hinde kinasuhan? Bakit ang isang lider ng relihiyon ba hinde pwedeng magkamali kung lumabag nga sa batas? At di ba, nangako siyang ibabalik sa iglesia, so its not actually a big deal. But what if, nakapangalan yon talaga sa kanya through due process? Paano kung me majority votes siya to be officer in charge of the properties? So tama lang yon, di ba? Tama lang na siya hahawak sa alleged 69milyon na pondo, di ba?

The problem now is, everything of these accusation must yet have to be FULLY validated. Kung hinde, wala kayong argumento.

Advertisements

JESUS FELT LUST

I posted in my facebook wall the idea that god was imperfect. He was perfected. To say that he was perfected means that at one time he was imperfect. How come? He felt human feelings and emotions. He thirsted. He hungered. He felt anguish. Thus he was imperfect. Fact is, he was perfected:

Luke 13:32
[32]And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Hebrews 5:8-9
[8]Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
[9]And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

And yes as i reiterated, he felt lust as it say:

Hebrews 4:15
[15]For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus felt our infirmities. He too, was infirm. And he was tempted in all points of infirmity. Understandably, that includes lust. How come? It say, tempted in all points. How come he was imperfect?Bec he is a god inside a human host. In short, he was a natural man–partly in his dual nature, that is, god and man. And being, natural like his brethren, then logically, he must have felt lust.

Hebrews 2:17-18
[17]Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
[18]For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

And being natural, like his brethren, he felt lust. The question is, is lust natural?

Yes as these sources implied:

Allan Schwartz, LCSW, Ph.D. said:

Furthermore, objection would be quite allusive to the verse which say:

2 Timothy 2:22
[22]Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

1 Thessalonians 4:4-5
[4]That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
[5]Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

In context, lust by itself is not sin. It only brings people to sin as it say:

James 1:14-15
[14]But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.all
[15]Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Therefore, having sexual lust is not sin. By saying, lust brings forth sin, then that by itself, makes lust not a sin. It only brings forth sin. Fact is its natural. So when it say, flee from youthful lust it must be taken in context. That is speaking of lust we must flee from if it brings us to sin. In short, if it pushes us for lewd thoughts and lascivousness–then flee from lust.

Matthew 5:28
[28]But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

But sexual lust per se is not bad. Firstly, its natural. Secondly, its not sin. Thirdly, jesus felt lust as i would like to reiterate:

Hebrews 4:15
[15]For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

IS LAMSA’S CHURCH OF CHRIST CORRECT?

Lamsa version is a bible translation from the Aramaic Peshitta. It translated Acts 20:28 this way: the church of Christ which he purchased with his own blood. First of all, what is the purpose of purchasing the church with his blood? That is to make gentiles and Israelites one called as one new man, as it say:

EPH2:11-15 ye being in time past GENTILES in the flesh…that at that time ye were without christ being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel…without god in this world BUT NOW IN CHRIST JESUS YE WHO ARE SOMETIME AFAR OFF ARE MADE NIGH BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST

FOR HE IS OUR PEACE WHO HAS MADE BOTH (gentiles and jews) ONE…FOR TO MAKE IN HIMSELF OF TWAIN ONE NEW MAN…

Secondly, from which did he purchase the church: sin or god? It cannot be purchased from sin as the church purchased was already saved as it say:

JOHN10:27 MY SHEEP LISTEN TO MY VOICE, I KNOW THEM AND THEY FOLLOW ME, I GIVE THEM ETERNAL LIFE AND THEY SHALL NEVER PERISH…

JOHN 10:29 NO MAN IS ABLE TO PLUCK THEM OFF MY FATHERS HAND…

JOHN 5:24 WHOEVER HEARS MY WORD AND BELIEVES HIM WHO SENT ME HAS ETERNAL LIFE AND WILL NOT BE CONDEMNED...

As you can see, prior to the purchase of the church through blood, the early church initially Jewish was already saved–they have eternal life. Thus the purchase was not to redeem them from sin bec they were already saved. As i said, it was to make gentiles and israelites a one new man. But objection might come through these:

HEB 9:22 WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION

ROM 3:23, 10 FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD…THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS….

They might say, the church being purchased was to redeem us from sin bec all are sinners and that without shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of us all, who generally are sinners. Without blood, noone will be forgiven including the church thus the necessity of blood to redeem us from sin. That is a possible argument.

First of all, I have to clarify that when it say all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god…none righteous its not speaking of all people but to some particular people bec fact is the blind are sinless as it say:

JOHN 9:41 IF YE WERE BLIND YE SHOULD HAVE NO SIN but now ye say, you see then your sin remain…

Besides, none righteous is false.

LUKE1:5-6 ZECHARIAH AND ELIZABETH WERE BOTH RIGHTEOUS…

Therefore, when it say without shedding of blood there is no remission it was not speaking in general terms bec as I elaborated, the early church was already saved–they have eternal life–prior to shedding of blood which means to say, they were forgiven without shedding of blood. Fact is, not all things are purged by blood as it say:

HEB 9:22 ALMOST ALL THINGS ARE BY THE LAW PURGED WITH BLOOD…

So was the church purchased from sin?

Absolutely not. They have already eternal life prior to the purchase–and shedding of blood.

It say, the church was purchased by christ. Meaning, the church was not his property but now, buying it makes him co-owner with God.

1COR6:20 YOU ARE BOUGHT AT A PRICE

John 17:9-10

[9]I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

[10]And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

If the church was his property prior to the purchase, did he buy what already was his property?
Ridiculous. It only suggests one thing, the church was not his property prior to the purchase.

If the church was already church of Christ prior to the purchase, do you buy what you already own?

Obviously not, thus church of Christ is wrong. Joe Ventilation implied: if it is church of god, the church would have been named after the purchaser, in this case, it would be God bec it is church of god. He then asked, does god have blood?

Joe said:

Kung ang tamang salin ng Gawa 20:28 ay “IGLESIA NI CRISTO,” bakit nagkaroon ng salin na ito ay “Iglesia ng Diyos”? Hindi ba alam ni Dr. Lamsa na may mga manuscripts na “Iglesia ng Diyos” ang nasa Gawa 20:28? Si Dr. Lamsa ang muli nating pasagutin sa kaniyang aklat na “NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN” p. 93

The Eastern text reads, ‘The Church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood.’ During the apostolic age, Jesus was called ‘Our Lord, or Christ.’ The apostles being Semites, could not have thought of God as having blood.

Ang mga apostol ay hindi maaaring nagkaroon ng paniniwala na ang Diyos ay may dugo. Sino ang may dugo na ipinangtubos sa Iglesia? Si Cristo, ayon sa 1 Pedro 1:18-19:”

He intend to mean that the name of the church that Christ bought was Church of Christ and not Church of God bec it was under Christ’s name being the purchaser–the new owner. He forgot to find an analogy why, it was church of god.

For example: John bought Peter’s house. So what did John buy? Peter’s house and not John’s house. Much so saying, Jesus bought God’s house (church). Does it mean it was God who bought it bec its called church of God? No! Jesus bought the house of God so naturally, it must be jesus to pay–through his blood. So what did he buy? The church of God. Why was it still called under the name of god and not under the new owner? Bec god is still the owner–

1 Corinthians 3:20-23
[20]And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
[21]Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
[22]Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
[23]And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

And jesus by buying it makes himself co-owner.

John 17:9-10

[9]I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

[10]And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

Moreover Joe said:

Ayon kay Dr. Bruce Metzger, isang textual critic sa United States, ay pinalitan ng ilang mga tagakopya ang mga termino sa Gawa 20:28:

It is possible, therefore, that a scribe, finding theou in his exemplar, was influenced by Old Testament usage and altered it to kuriou. On the other hand, it is also possible that a scribe, influenced by Pauline usage, changed kuriou of his exemplar to theou (Metzger, Bruce, The Text of the New Testament, 3rd Enlarged Edition, Oxford University Press, New York (1992), p. 235).

As you can see, nothing is strong in his argument that there was an alteration thus it became church of god. As you can see, it is merely a possibility. In short, a theory–a weak argument! But look at how he compromised himself:
It is possible, therefore, that a scribe, finding theou in his exemplar, was influenced by Old Testament usage and altered it to kuriou.

Joe unmindfully, did not noticed how theou was original for the verse in question to mean ekklesian tou theou–or the church of god.

For the question: is lamsa’s church of christ correct?
A big no. Firstly, the book of acts was written in greek as it was being written for a greek person, Theophilus. And in Greek, it was written as ekklesian tou theou or the church of god. Lamsa was based from Aramaic so its rather farfetched.

Secondly, God himself sanctioned that his people are called by his name–

DAN 9:19 FOR YOUR CITY AND YOUR PEOPLE ARE CALLED BY THY NAME

That is, after god himself as confirmed by Paul. The church must be named after god as it say:

EPH3:14-15 for this cause i bow my knees UNTO THE FATHER…

EK EX (AFTER) WHOM THE WHOLE FAMILY IN HEAVEN AND EARTH IS NAMED…

The church being named after God must necessarily be called church of God. Fact is, Paul called the early church he persecuted as church of god.

Galatians 1:22-23

[22]And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

[23]But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

GAL 1:13 I PERSECUTED THE CHURCH OF GOD

Paul called the persecuted church as the church of god. It cannot be denied that that was speaking of the one collective church back then as it is in singular form in reference to the plural and locale churches of judea then. It means, it was descriptive of the integral church as one collective church of god. In essence, is the formal and proper name of the church. By these, we can say the lamsa version is erroneous.

I would like to reiterate that the church must be named after God thus necessarily, it must be church of god.

EPH3:14-15 for this cause i bow my knees UNTO THE FATHER…

EK EX (AFTER) WHOM THE WHOLE FAMILY IN HEAVEN AND EARTH IS NAMED…

Notably, Joe Ventilacion, a Greek scholar and frontman debater of INC loves to utilize scholars in affirmation to his stand yet he neglect scholars in adverse point than his such as New Testament scholar and translator Daniel B. Wallace. In an interview Wallace confirms the reliability of the King James version and NET Bible as it say:

CP: Which translations do you prefer for personal Bible study?

Wallace: It depends. I think that English speakers should have more than one translation. If we have in our background a history of Christian thought in the Western world, especially in the English-speaking world, it’s part of our tradition and it’s important to own a lot more than one translation. I do recommend that every English-speaking Christian have a King James Bible. There’s nothing that compares to it in terms of its elegance and its cadence and the beauty of its language. … But it’s not the most accurate anymore. So it’s elegant, it’s easy to memorize out of even though the language is archaic, but it’s not always real clear and it’s not always real accurate. So I also recommend a study Bible that is following the Greek and Hebrew texts pretty closely. There are two that I especially recommend — the NET Bible, of course. One of the reasons the NET is valuable is because it has more footnotes than any other Bible in any other language in history — over 60,000 footnotes. …

The ESV is the other one that I recommended as a really good study Bible. It’s got some nice cadence to it. Leland Ryken, who’s professor of English literature at Wheaton College, worked on it as a stylist making sure that its kind of understated elegance, it’s memorable. For the 21st century, it comes about as close to duplicating the elegance of the King James Bible as can be done today. I think it’s also an accurate translation. I think the Old Testament especially is very good, but the New Testament also is a good translation. Those are the ones I’d recommend for study Bibles.

Source:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/renowned-new-testament-scholar-on-bible-translation-what-to-read-why-and-myths-to-avoid-part-3-88756/

That clearly weakens Joe’s rhetorics of using scholars as you can see scholars are individually minded–or rather opinionated. Are they inspired speakers anyway? In the NET bible and ESV that this scholar required to has church of god in its Acts 20:28 rendition.

Other scholars that use church of god:
trinitarian NT scholar and translator William Barclay rendered Acts 20:28:

“… the Church of God which he has rescued through the blood of his own One.”

Note the the even more certain conclusion of trinitarian scholar, Murray J. Harris, after an extensive analysis of this passage:

“I have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read [THN EKKLHSIAN TOU THEOU HN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOU AIUATOS TOU IDIOU] and that the most appropriate translation of these words is ‘the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own one’ or ‘the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son’ (NJB), with [HO IDIOS] construed as a christological title. According to this view, [HO THEOS] refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ.

Moreover, i have shown that god and jesus own the church. Now, we know that god is greater than jesus in terms of hierarchy. Would it be logical that the church would be named to someone lesser than him even with the fact that both of them are co-owners?

Of course, it would be named after the one in greater rank–god! Thus properly, its church of god.

MUHAMMAD IS NOT IN THE SONG OF SOLOMON

Trying to validate the presence of Muhammad in the bible, Muslims utilize the apparently scriptural confirmation of such idea. Apparently, as nothing expressed the term “muhammadim” in certain note. Muslims say its “muhammadim”. The Hebrew used the term “machmadim”. So there is nothing certain. Granting that its “muhammadim”, does it denotes the idea of a proper noun? Or was it simply, an adjective?

Questioner

Khazrin Haidi Izwan

Reply Date

Mar 14, 2018

Question

Salam, I have a question regarding our prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Bible. In the Song of Solomon, chapter 5 verse 16, we read in Hebrew: “Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem.” It means “His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” Islamic scholars claim “Muhammadim” is one of the places where Prophet (PBUH) is mentioned in the Bible. However, Christians claim that it does not refer to Muhammad because the whole chapter is about man-woman love story. So, is it Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who is meant by “Muhammadim” in the Song of Solomon?

Now for the sake of factual evaluation, is there certainty to the concept that muhammadim is a proper name or was it simply an adjective?

For example, JOYFUL is both noun and adjective. JOYFUL as a proper noun would obviously be understood as a name. Example: My name is joyful. JOYFUL as an adjective would be understood as a descriptive term. Its not a name. Example: The joyful crowd praised Jesus.

Comparatively speaking, is muhammadim a proper noun or simply an adjective?

That is something to be certified first bec if not, we have no way to ascertain muhammad’s presence in the songs of solomon. So is it a noun–or an adjective?

Muslims has no answer.

The hebrew term used though was “machmadim”. It is either a noun or adjective. Machmadim as adjective can be found in these verses:  Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19. Machmadim as noun can be found in these verses: Ezekiel 24:16,21,25. So is this also Muhammad?

Nothing certified though that Muhammadim/machmadim in song of Solomon certifies a proper noun. It could simply be an adjective therefore nothing verifies any presence of Muhammad in it–on certain note!

JESUS IS NOT A MUSLIM

Illustrated above is the actual posture of Jesus as he prayed prior to crucifixion. Firstly, his face was on the ground as it say:

Matthew 26:39

[39]And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Secondly, his knees were clipped tightly thus making it in horizontal posture as expressed:

Luke 22:41

[41]And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and TITHEMI GONU and prayed,

TITHEMI means putting in horizontal posture. GONU means the knees. Thus TITHEMI GONU is putting the knees in horizontal posture. 

Hebrew: τίθημι

Transliteration: tithēmi

Pronunciation: tith’-ay-mee

Definition: A prolonged form of a primary word θέω theō (which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses); to place (in the widest application literally and figuratively; properly in a passive or horizontal posture and thus different from G2476 which properly denotes an upright and active position while G2749 is properly reflexive and utterly prostrate): – + advise appoint bow commit conceive give X kneel down lay (aside down up) make ordain purpose put set (forth) settle sink down.

Hebrew: γονύ

Transliteration: gonu

Pronunciation: gon-oo’

Definition: Of uncertain affinity; the knee: – knee (X -l).

In a flat posture, the knees would be perpendicular with the ground but prostrating such as illustrated in the photo makes the knees to be in horizontal posture. In essence as according to luke, this is the proper praying posture executed by Jesus prior to his crucifixion that is, TITHEMI GONU, or properly is, putting the knees in horizontal posture.

Jesus never prayed the Muslim way so how come he is a Muslim? Much so, he called God his father as likewise the father of believers which is unislamic.

Sura 5:18

And (both) the Jews and the Christians say: “We are the children of Allah and His loved ones.” Say: “Why then does He punish you for your sins?” Nay, you are but human beings, of those He has created, He forgives whom He wills and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and to Him is the return (of all). [6]

So is jesus a muslim?

Absolutely Not.

LIVE-IN ALLOWED: THE DANIEL AND ARLENE RAZON ISSUE

Does god allows live in for couples as husband and wife even without matrimony?
YES, AS LONG AS THERE IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COUPLES TO LIVE AS HUSBAND AND WIFE. Contract in the sense that, both party agreed to the idea of it, not necessarily, in need of documentary will–or matrimony.

Here is proof:

Galatians 3:15

[15]Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Even without tangible contract, provided its a covenant between them as they both confirmed, it is a valid testament for which god acknowledges as binding, as legal husband and wife–though absent of matrimony.

Much so, if sworn personally as oath to god.

Ecclesiastes 5:4

[4]When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.

Joseph and Mary was already husband and wife before the actual ritual of matrimony took place, proving the validity, of live-in as a god sanctioned law, wherein, even without matrimony, you could be husband and wife in the eyes of god…

Matthew 1:18-20

[18]Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

[19]Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

[20]But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

MARY AND JOSEPH WAS NOT PRACTICING LIVE-IN. They were engaged to be married but even before it materialized god already considered them as husband and wife, giving the idea, that those in live-in status, being on that privileged given by god to practice live-in, implies that they, too, are husband and wife.

How come?

BEC SEX IS ONLY FOR HUSBAND AND WIFE, otherwise, its fornication and bec God allows live-in therefore, practicing sex between them is fornication unless, they are husband and wife–even with the absence of matrimony.

Therefore to have sexual life for live-in couples should happen after they have a covenant to live as husband and wife even without matrimony.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

[1]Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

[2]Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

GOD ALLOWS LIVE-IN AS COVENANT TO LIVE AS HUSBAND AND WIFE.

Galatians 3:15

[15]Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

MUCH SO, IF TWO CHRISTIANS MAKE IT AS AN OATH TO GOD EVEN WITHOUT MATRIMONY.

Ecclesiastes 5:4

[4]When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.

We are allowed to do all things as long as it don’t contradicts or oppose any christian doctrine, we can do all things Jews do  or a pagan do or any thing a man do under the sun as long as it don’t contradicts or oppose any thing in the law of Christ, such as watching TV, celebrating birthdays, fiesta, etc…though god never ordered us to do those things, and bec it don’t oppose any christian doctrine then we are allowed to do it such as how paul, become as a jew, a pagan etc…but not opposing the law of christ, meaning, paul do what jews and pagans do as long as it dont oppose the law of christ as he said:

1 Corinthians 9:20-22

[20]And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

[21]To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

[22]To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Having that as a premise, is live in contradicting any law of christ, in the sense that, it is a confirmed covenant between lovers to live as husband and wife?

No. It dont oppose any law, bec god allows it as he said:

GAL3:15 THOUGH IT IS A MANS COVENANT (agreement) BUT IF CONFIRMED, NOONE COULD DISANNUL IT…

THEREFORE LIVE-IN BEING IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, EXEMPTED IT FROM BEING A FORNICATION, THUS A LEGITIMATE CHRISTIAN ACT, WHEREIN IT MUST BE UPHELD.

Firstly, it dont oppose the law of christ. Secondly, it is a mans covenant allowed by god, that when confirmed, by the involved parties, is legally binding covenant, acceptable to god, therefore live-in partners agreeing to be husband and wife, validates their status as legitimate husband and wife…

WHAT DOES “ONE GOD” MEANS?

Speaking of jesus:

PHIL 2:6 WHO BEING IN THE MORPHE (SHAPE) OF GOD THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD…

Jesus is in the shape of god therefore as confirmatory, Jesus and god has same shape. Having the same shape thus they have same nature. They are equally god as they have one nature like man is equally human being as they have the same nature.

Mankind has same nature. Jesus and god have equal shape.
Speaking of jesus:

Hebrews 1:3

[3]Who being the brightness of his glory, and the CHARAKTER (EXACT COPY) of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Shape implies their integral form. If they have blood cells, or DNA or skull or brain cells etc… the integral shape of these– or whatever Jesus and god’s natural form is–is equal between god and Jesus thus naturally, they are equal in their natural state as God.
Therefore Jesus and god has one spirit nature. The shape of their spirit form are equal. Thus they are one god. Equal in nature.

GOD IS GREATER THOUGH THAN JESUS BUT THAT IS IN ASPECT OF AUTHORITY WHEREAS IN NATURE THEY ARE EQUAL.

1 Corinthians 11:3

[3]But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

John 13:16

[16]Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:28

[28]Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

For example, in a family, the father is greater than his children in terms of authority but in nature, they are equally human beings likewise, god is greater than Jesus in authority but in nature, they are equally God–
That as preferential, much so contextual, makes them one god. Like man has same nature thus they are called mankind–one, singular and collective. Jesus and god almighty have equal nature thus they are called god–one, singular and collective. Much so, as expressed that being two individual person they are one collective god as indicated:

James 2:19

[19]Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

ANALYSIS: BRO ELI DID NOT RAPE PUTO

Good day folks, I’m here obliged as my christian duty to interfere with your thoughts regarding the rape scandal of Bro Eli Soriano to at least impart my 2cent worth thought, that for the purpose of justice might mitigate any bad impression you have for him. Please folks, what i would divulge is already public knowledge in MCGI which most of you might have overlooked but as necessary should have aroused your critical thinking for a logical consideration–Puto’s sexual perversion on some church members.

It was alleged that Bro Eli raped Puto but is that actually a close to real scenario? Dauntless, his alleged victim confessed of raping numerous boys in his homosexual immersion of lust. Here is his handwritten disclosure:

Translating it says: i have committed a great offense to the following boys (he enumerated names)…i have done to them lascivousness and i promise not to do it again…. I have misappropriated part of the financial income of AMS for personal use…I’m asking for your forgiveness… I hope that I will be retained and still continue (as a member of the church).

After sometime, he then goes roughly on his pursuit for a rape charges against Bro Eli.

But does that make any rape allegation true?

For the critical thinker, it is highly a consideration to ponder on the nature of the letter. Firstly, it indicates a moral scrutiny on its tone how it sounded down-to-earth confession and personally submissive to have begged himself for a second chance. Is that sounding like someone who was really raped, ravaged against his will to still recognized the binding power of the leader having yet respect for him as his “sugo” by the fact that he was begging for another more chance? Does that look like someone raped? Rape is rape bec its against ones will, but how come Puto was yet submissive? Then, suddenly, after sometime he became rough by imputing rape charges at the expense of his previous appeal–his appeal for a second chance. Sounds suspicious. Was he at this moment been under the influence of our rival church, INC? Not to diminish the fact, that in summary offense, he was the real rapist.

Should we have not second thought if indeed this man was really raped?

On personal note, i would say, asking for second chance is a hint of a good impression he have upon Bro Eli. On the account of being a believer, he recognized him as a true spiritual leader by his submission for a second chance thus weakening any possibility of rape.

This is just my opinion.

But for the rest, is there credibility for this man knowing that he confessed of doing homosexual rape on some church members?

Without bias, your thought should have been on the positive. Bro eli did not rape anyone–or least to say, wronged anyone!

MANALO IS A CHURCH-FED STOUT-BELLY

If we are to believe INC’s church members, they admitted that Manalo is a jobless leader dependent on abuloy for his family’s daily needs. His wife, jobless as well is equally dependent.

Bro Eli Soriano on the otherhand is a prosperous businessman. His daily needs are from personal hard-earned money.

Who of them is compliant to biblical principle? The hardworker or the apparently sloth?

I asked: Is Manalo dependent on abuloy for his daily needs?

They responded:

They seem to invoke the verse which say: he that preach the gospel should live of the gospel yet is that really the certain contextual interpretation?

1 Corinthians 9:13-15

[13]Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

[14]Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

[15]But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

When saying he that preach the gospel should live of the gospel it never emphasized dependence on abuloys for your personal necessities. It should be looked up at this way: to live of the gospel is to live the gospel in terms of practice. In short, applying the gospel in our daily lives as the way to live of the gospel. It never emphasized the personal dependence on abuloys. Fact is, Paul even rectified the thought of partaking with the altar as levite priests practiced by saying: i have used none of these things neither have i written these things, that it should be so done unto me. Meaning, Paul never practice the levite custom of partaking with the altar, to subsist on church providence and this too, is the mindset Paul wanted leaders to follow as he said:

Philippians 4:9

[9]Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

In practice, leaders must not subsist on abuloys so as Paul was as exemplary, when he said: these hands work for my necessities. As much so saying that indeed leaders must work if not, they must not eat.

2 Thessalonians 3:10

[10]For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

In fact, preaching the gospel must be done freely. And saying freely, it must not have any trail of profit or even so to say, a wage bec if so, then how could it be called freely?

2 Corinthians 11:7-8

[7]Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?

[8]I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

Paul indeed robbed other churches taking wages of them but that as exchange for the business entrepreneurship that as probably, selling tents he offered for them, and not actually taking wages from his preaching bec if so, how did he preach the gospel freely?

Matthew 10:7-8

[7]And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 

[8]Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 

Lastly, Paul never profited from the church as it say:

1 Corinthians 10:33

[33]Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

Clearly, these verses acclaims the reality, in biblical principles, that leaders of the true church must not in any way commit personal dependence from church’s providence–so as to ascertain profit. 

By these, who is being fattened like a stout-bellied sloth–or pig, so to say?

WHO IS INNOCENT IN ISLAM?

Muslims defensive stand use a Quranic verse which say: he that kills an innocent person is as though he kills the whole of mankind as a reason to say, they don’t kill innocent people. The question is, to what context–or extent explains to us who are indeed innocent? Are they non-combatant ordinary civilians indeed or are they the ones presumed only by the leader as innocent? 

In this article, I will tackle the reasons why I believe innocent people in Islam are those possibly guilty people yet the leader presumed as innocent. Likewise, the guilty people deserving of death are those possibly innocent people presumed guilty by the leader. 

In his war dealings, Muhammad did a violation against Allah by doing murder and yet Allah proclaimed him a pattern of conduct. Therefore Islamic practice in war dealings includes murder such as exemplified by Muhammad when he massacred Banu Quraisha through a jew’s verdict which is against Quranic principle as this action is not divinely sanctioned–its missing from the Quran!

Muhammad massacred a tribe according to the judgment of a Jew.

thus the apostle said: Will you be satisfied, o Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them? When they agreed he said that Sa’d b. Mu’adh was the man…Sa’d said, Then I give judgement that the men should be killed, the property divide, and the women and children taken as captives. (Ibid,. pp. 464)

The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sa`d bin Mu`adh. So the Prophet sent for Sa`d, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet said (to Sa`d).” These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa`d said, “KILL THEIR WARRIORS and take their offspring as captives, “On that the Prophet said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgement.”(Sahih al-Bukhari volume 5, Book 59, Hadith 447)


Therefore Muhammad killed them.


Tabari volume 8 victory of Islam p.35-36




Including teens with pubic hairs as guilty of death and spared those without pubic hair as innocent.

Sunan an-Nasa’i:

It was narrated that Kathir bin As-Sa’ib said: “The sons of Quraizah told me that they were presented to the Messenger of Allah on the Day of Quraizah, and whoever (among them) had reached puberty, or had grown pubic hair, was killed, and whoever had not reached puberty and had not grown pubic hair was left (alive).” (Sunan an-Nasa’i Volume 4, Book 27, Hadith 3459).





The scenario is like this: Muhammad requested the participation of the jews for the judgment of their prisoners of war, Banu Quraisha. Saad, the leader of the tribe, made a verdict of death penalty which Muhammad has approval thus Muhammad ordered Banu Quraisha (including teens with pubic hair) to be executed. The question is: how did muhammad know who are innocent indeed from not? In other words, how did he determine penal responsibility of these enemies of war?

What is penal responsibility?

“Penal responsibility, or criminal responsibility, refers to a person’s ability to understand when the crime was committed. A person is responsible and could go to jail having fully known at the time of the crime what they did, and that they understood the implications.

So besides the prerequisite for pubic hair, the treacherous Banu Qurayza were also checked out for having possessed the requisite state of mind when they committed the treachery.

Hence, those who understood clearly and were aware that what they did were the only ones who were killed. Those who didn’t understand the crime because they don’t know what was right or wrong (even though having pubic hair), were not touched.”

In short, penal responsibility is the mental condition of an offender to know that his actions are morally right or wrong. A state of mind wherein his age of reason is developed to determine criminal liability.

Regarding Banu Quraisha, How did Muhammad established penal responsibility of his prisoners in such a manner that convicted them for death penalty?

In order to establish penal responsibility, there must need the necessity to determine mental age. Bec mental age is determinant of penal responsibility. Lets say, a mental age of 13years old is liable of penal responsibility, then it must be established first that the offender has the appropriate mental age. If its pubic hairs that determines who are liable for penal responsibility, then probably 13year olds, as the growth of pubic hairs begins, are liable for penal responsibility. What if among these prisoners were people that are mentally backwards, say, a 13year old having a mental age of 10? Killing them without establishing mental age is prone to killing mentally backwards people, which are logically innocent as they dont have yet penal responsibility. So did Muhammad made a psychological investigation to determine mental age?

No. Bec it is not in the Quran to determine mental age or to particularly, establish penal responsibility, therefore Muhammad killing prisoners of war is founded on no other basis but presumption. He presumed who are guilty to be killed and who are innocent to be spared bec of the fact that he was unable to establish penal responsibility–or even, for the sake of justice, mental age. 

So who are innocent in Islam? Those possibly guilty people as they could be 10year olds but having mentally advance mind of 13, guilty of treason and breaking treaties, yet still, Muhammad spared them from death bec he presumed them innocent by his inability to establish penal responsibility.

So who are guilty of death? Those possibly innocent people, mentally backwards, yet killed bec simply, they have pubic hairs. Muhammad killed them bec he presumed them guilty by his inability to establish penal responsibility. 

Therefore presumption of guilt and presumption of innocence is primarily an active reason in islam to kill or spare. So who are innocent? Those presumed innocent by the leader. So who are guilty? Those presumed guilty by the leader.

Such that when Islam is at war, for example, against America and the leader presumed the guilt of ordinary citizens as allies of its government by being taxpayers wherein their taxes help America with acquiring war machineries, bombing them therefore is justified as they are presumed guilty.

Lastly, for the question, who is innocent in islam?

These are people who are presumed innocent by the leader though in reality could be indeed guilty of offense.

Who are guilty of death?

These are people who could be innocent in the real sense of innocence but presumed guilty by the leader.

Much so that, Muhammad being a violator of a major Islamic law by doing murder through a non quranic involvement of a jew’s verdict, yet despite his act being absent from the revelation, Allah proclaimed him as pattern of conduct. Meaning, violating Quranic revelation is actually good having Muhammad as model. Allah decreed that Muhammad only follow the revelation:

And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, those who look not to encounter Us say, ‘Bring a Koran other than this, or alter it.’ Say: ‘It is not for me to alter it of my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.’ S. 10:15 Arberry

But the fact remains, Muhammad massacre of Banu Quraisha through a Jew’s verdict is absent from the revelation–there is no such that decreed the participation of a jew’s verdict–therefore a major violation as Muhammad should only follow what is revealed but he did not. He did murder. Muhammad killed by his own way and not after the way of Allah. Despite that Allah proclaimed him a model. Therefore, during war, violating Allah by doing murder is good in islam.

But Muslims invoke the use of the verse which say, obey Allah and his messenger to claim that Muhammad can make personal decisions. The problem is, Quran is fully detailed thus necessarily, it must have in it the killing of banu quraisha through a Jew’s verdict, but it has none. Therefore it was a lawless order. Logically, murder. Despite that Allah considered it a good thing by upholding the integrity of Muhammad as a model of conduct.

Much so, Muhammad cannot invent any order by personal inclination but following only the revelation. So where in the revelation is the order to kill through a Jew’s verdict? None. So what revelation did he follow when he said:  I follow nothing except the revelation? None. So obviously, it was murder–appropriately, a massacre.

it is the speech of a noble Messenger. It is not the speech of a poet (little do you believe) nor the speech of a soothsayer (little do you remember). A sending down from the Lord of all Being. Had he invented against Us any sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would surely have cut his life-vein. S. 69:40-46 Arberry

53:1-5

By the star when it descends, your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, taught to him by one intense .

Having said that, should you blame us if we thought of that as sort of terrorism?
So basically, what is Islam?
It is violating Allah in war dealings through murder and kill possibly innocent people by presumption of guilt–such as how Muhammad presumed the guilt of Banu Quraisha teens being unable to determine penal responsibility or mental age.